Are organic farmers the only group that looks at carbon as a resource rather than a waste product?
Question by Amy L: Are organic farmers the only group that looks at carbon as a resource rather than a waste product?
While conventional farming typically depletes soil organic matter, organic farming builds it through the use of composted animal manures and cover crops.
It seems to me that expanded use of organic farming could be an important short-term solution in fighting global climate change, a way of buying time for more fundamental changes.
Your thoughts?
http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1003/carbonsequest.shtml
Give your answer to this question below!
7 Responses to Are organic farmers the only group that looks at carbon as a resource rather than a waste product?
Leave a Reply
Very interesting!!
zucchinisyoucantkeepagoodonedown
October 30, 2011 at 11:01 pm
As long as the organic farming is successful, it could work. But it is unlikely that farming on a large scale could be converted to organic without epidemics breaking out (such a blite, insects, dieseses, nutrient deprovation) which chemicals protect from. Using manuer could also introduce food borne illnesses if not properly composted. Food prices would definately get higher and we will definately need more growers and farmers out there, lots of crop rotation and fewer larger farms. Prices would probably go up, but more jobs would be created for farming. I don’t know…I really do wish it would work on an ideal level but….
Orangeaporange
October 30, 2011 at 11:14 pm
I like organic veggies. On my routine walks in the hills of Shen Zhen with my dog I usually buy some from the farmers and I think they taste better than the ones I get in the super market. It is also comforting to know I am doing something good for the environment by encouraging the farmers to grow more organic veggies and fruits.
CAPTAIN BEAR
October 30, 2011 at 11:15 pm
I find this article some what misleading and protray conventional farmers, as the bad guys when there not. When the article says
“Launched in 1981, the FST is a 12-acre, side-by-side experiment comparing three agricultural management systems: one conventional, one legume-based organic, and one manure-based organic. In 23 years of continuous recordkeeping, the FST’s two organic systems have shown an increase in soil carbon of 15-28%, while the conventional system has shown no statistically significant increase. For the organic systems that translates into more than 1000 lbs of captured C (or about 3670 lbs of CO2) per acre-foot per year—and that’s not even counting the reductions in CO2 emissions represented by the organic systems’ lower energetic requirements”
Seeing as they do not say what kind of conventional system they use, I am going to assume they use the plowing of the ground in the fall and then cultivating it at least twice in the springtype of conventional. Yes this does cause carbon to be released into the atmosphere, but this can also create an advantage by greatly reducing the number of weeds in the fields, which include biennials and annuals, and well then reduce the need to apply pesticides to kill the weeds.
Organic farming still uses tillage practises to plant the crops into the ground. So carbon is still released into the atmosphere.
There is another form of conventional farming, and that is no-till farming. This type of farming requires no tillage whats so ever, therefore reducing the number of times a tractor needs to go over a field, and helping to reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere by the soil, and greatly reducing the loss of soil erosion. How ever this can cause problems for farmers as well. No-till can work very well in a sandy loam soil, for there is less compaction issues, but using no-till on clay-loam soil, would greatly reduce yield becuase of compaction issues. There is also weed issues because the weeds are not up rooted, and so there are more weed issues to deal with, which can cause more pesticides to be used.
Another point that should be raised is that the article says using animal manure in organic farming:
“While conventional farming typically depletes soil OM, organic farming builds it through the use of composted animal manures and cover crops.”
This statement gives the impression that conventional farming use no animal manure, or cover crops, which are then incorporated into the ground. This is simply not true. All livestock producers use animal manure, and spread it onto the crop fields to use as a fertilizer. This also reduces the amount of synthetic fertilizer needed to apply to the fields. Many farmers also plant cover crops or properly rotate there crops help the soil and to reduce fertilizer costs. An example would be the crop rotation of wheat, soybeans, and corn. When the wheat is harvested, the stalk can aid as a soil cover to help prevent erosion, or can be cultivated into the ground to be used as organic matter. Soybeans have bacteria that looks like warts on the roots of the plant. This bacteria grow on there roots and gather nitrogen from the ground, which the soybean plant uses. When the soybean plant is harvested the nitrogen fixing bacteria stay in the ground, and so when corn is planted, the corn can use this nitrogen from the now dead bacteria. This again reduces the need for fertilizer. Cover crops such as red clover are also planted, so they grow after the wheat has been harvested and are the plowed into the ground in the fall to be used as “green manure” when corn is planted.
I am not against organic farming, and I believe that both conventional and organic can take the best from both sides and work together. But pitting the two different kinds of practises against eachother well accomplish nothing and well just simply mislead the public.
Matthew
October 30, 2011 at 11:18 pm
the idea is as old as the hills
tierra preta as done by Amazonian farmers thousands of years ago was carbon based farming
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0411-terra_preta.html
quote
Ancient Amazonian technology could save the world
May 17, 2007 Terra preta, the ancient charcoal-based soil used by ancient Amazonians to create permanently fertile agricultural lands in the rainforest, is getting serious consideration as a means to fight global warming and meet domestic energy demand, reports an article in Scientific American.
Biochar fund to fight hunger, energy poverty, deforestation, and global warming
March 10, 2008 Biopact, a leading bioenergy web site, has announced the creation of a “Biochar Fund” to help poor farmers improve their quality of life without hurting the environment. Biochar — a farming technique that adds charcoal obtained from the pyrolysis of biomass to poor, acidic soils — has been hailed as a way to simultaneously sequester atmospheric carbon and improve soil fertility. By intensifying agricultural productivity, biochar could help reduce the need to clear forests and ecosystems for cropland while offering farmers diversified income through carbon credits.
Restoring soil carbon can reverse global warming, desertification and biodiversity loss
February 21, 2008 Restoring the ability of soil to store carbon by promoting native grasses and vegetation can help reverse global warming, desertification and biodiversity loss, says an Australian researcher. Land use change — including deforestation, bush fires, and soil degradation — accounts for roughly 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, but land management practices can be used to reduce emissions. While reforestation and avoided deforestation have garnered a lot of attention of late, restoration of other forms of vegetation can dramatically increase the capacity of degraded landscapes to store carbon.
Today the world bank uses carbon as a lure ,to persuade farmers to accept the subsidies that come with the planting of Paulownia .the best carbon capturing tree around
byderule
October 30, 2011 at 11:22 pm
(Matthew), summary was excellent. There are other areas, such as biointensive farming that uses the principle of calorie farming, aka; trenching. Used mainly for root crops, but can be nonrestrictive to other types. It has been successful for long term sustainability on a closed system and small scale commercial farms. I can’t recall the towns name, but is located in Rhode Island. They uses this method for charity foods/crops. One requirement is a 60% compost crop as Matthew mention indirectly, along with trash farming/tilling. The concept is to produce more with less including acreage. This method predates industrialization, and is utilized in many countries. Must be something to folklore and methodology?
ed: I provided the link u ask for on the comment bar of the preceding question that u ask.
Heretic
October 31, 2011 at 12:09 am
* There is no “scientific consensus” on global warming
* Climate is always changing – with or without man
* The Medieval Warm Period was significantly warmer than temperatures today – and was a golden age for agriculture, innovation, and lifespan
* Most of Antarctica is actually getting colder
* Hurricanes are not getting worse – our tendency to build houses in their path is getting greater
* Many big businesses lobby for global warming policies that will increase their profits – and our costs
* The media only recently abandoned the “global cooling” scare
* The real agenda behind the “global warming” scare? A massive expansion of government control over the economy and our lives
cocomojo
October 31, 2011 at 12:27 am